Christianity

[Immanuel Can]

How? How is it "clear" that mankind was not created "fully formed"? Have you discovered a new theory of anthropogenesis? I have to say, I remain skeptical. But I'll hear it, if you offer it.

Come on, I bet the majority of Christians don't take all of the Bible literally, and certainly not Genesis.

You're wrong, but that's not an answer to my question, of course. There is no alternate, "more scientific" account on offer, and no reason at all not to think man is a unique creature.

[seeds]

Furthermore, what do you mean by saying that you are actually haggling over...

"...how it didn't come into existence..."

I don't really mean anything by "haggling". You introduced that word, and I just picked it up, it's not a word I would have chosen myself. I was expressing my opinion that there is nothing about the universe that justifies arriving at the conclusion that it was consciously, or intentionally, designed,...

Yes, I understand that, and to which I, in turn, proposed that the design is so perfectly executed...

(as in the artistic "brushstrokes," so to speak, of its creator are so well hidden)

...that it makes many humans believe that it wasn't designed, which, again, is precisely what I humbly "suggest" is the intent of the design.

...and also that whether it was or wasn't designed, there is nothing in the Bible that is able to shed any light on the matter.

Well, seeing how much of the Bible is based on mythological nonsense, then I can't fault you (or anyone else) for doubting the veracity of its silly depictions of how the world (and humans) allegedly came into being.

But what do you expect of ancient minds (ancient "amoebas") who, at the time when those ideas were formulated, thought that if you walked too far in one direction, you would fall off the edge of the earth?

Now then, do I get another booby prize for that?

Well, maybe not another booby prize, but you should, however, not be surprised if I view your take on reality as seeming to fall into the "agnostic" camp, which is perfectly reasonable...

...(in fact, infinitely more reasonable than the camp of the hardcore materialist).

(And yes, I'm aware of the fact that you don't like being associated with any "ists" or "isms" or "itys," or, in this case, "tics," but as they say, "if the shoe fits"...)
_______

[Harbal]

You're wrong,

I'm not wrong about the Bible. It is just another mythology, and no better than so many others.

There is no alternate, "more scientific" account on offer.

Of course there is an alternative, more scientific, account on offer, and the vast majority of educated people favour science to the Bible when it comes to explaining the universe.

and no reason at all not to think man is a unique creature.

Man is certainly extraordinary, in as much as his speciality -intelligence- has enabled him to dominate every other creature on the planet, but Unique doesn't really seem appropriate. There is a vast diversity amoung the creatures of the Earth, and we are merely but one example of it. I am human, so I attach a special significance to humans, but, nature doesn't.

[Harbal]

Yes, I understand that, and to which I, in turn, proposed that the design is so perfectly executed...

(as in the artistic "brushstrokes," so to speak, of its creator are so well hidden)

...that it makes many humans believe that it wasn't designed, which, again, is precisely what I humbly "suggest" is the intent of the design.

I don't believe that the universe was designed, and although I would be quite fascinated to learn that it actually was, it wouldn't be a matter of great importance to me. I don't think it would change the way I live my life, or my experience of it. As a tiny, insignificant spec in the universe, I am already in awe of its power and vastness, and I can't see how believing that it was designed would make any difference to that. And neither am I more attracted to one view more than the other in terms of personal preferance, so when I tend to think there is no design I don't think there is any bias at work.

Well, maybe not another booby prize, but you should, however, not be surprised if I view your take on reality as seeming to fall into the "agnostic" camp, which is perfectly reasonable...

Well surely, in a place like this forum, being reasonable deserves some sort of prize.

[Nick_A]

How? How is it "clear" that mankind was not created "fully formed"? Have you discovered a new theory of anthropogenesis? I have to say, I remain skeptical. But I'll hear it, if you offer it.

Come on, I bet the majority of Christians don't take all of the Bible literally, and certainly not Genesis. It's too ridiculous to even enter into a converstation about it.

Are there essential truths in Genesis which require more than dualistic discursive thought to reveal? Consider the beginning from Genesis 1?

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

Obviously it is absurd for normal conditioned dualistic logic. But is a person capable of opening to a higher form of reason that reveals 1) How can there be light when there is no sun? 2) What is good when the universe is formless and empty? How are "day and night" produced without a sun? What is a day?

You seem able to admit you don't understand but still don't attack those who sense the logic in it and are trying to understand. I salute you. We've come a long way since the horrors of the "Futility of Reason" thread. Granted I wouldn't initiate such a thread again. I've learned by experience about secular intolerance. but if someone else did, I would contribute but I think those who can have been scared away.

[Harbal]

Are there essential truths in Genesis which require more than dualistic discursive thought to reveal? Consider the beginning from Genesis 1?

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

Obviously it is absurd for normal conditioned dualistic logic. But is a person capable of opening to a higher form of reason that reveals 1) How can there be light when there is no sun? 2) What is good when the universe is formless and empty? How are "day and night" produced without a sun? What is a day?

You seem able to admit you don't understand but still don't attack those who sense the logic in it and are trying to understand. I salute you. We've come a long way since the horrors of the "Futility of Reason" thread. Granted I wouldn't initiate such a thread again. I've learned by experience about secular intolerance. but if someone else did, I would contribute but I think those who can have been scared away.

I'm about as secular as you can get, Nick, but I don't feel a need to attack anybody for what they believe, but what they do might be a different matter. I dread to think what society would be like if the more fundamental Christian movement had its way. They already have significant influence in the USA, and the last thing I want is for that to happen in my country. It is true that I don't understand the Bible, but hardly anybody does, and I include those who call themselves Christians. They rely on others to interpret it for them, who in turn take advantage of their position of influence to interfere in the political system. The religion dominated state is part of of history now, and that's how it needs to stay. As far as I'm concerned we should see the Bible as a symbol of oppression, not a source of wisdom.

I still haven't managed to figure out what you believe, or exactly what kind of world you want, but I'm not hostile to it, and I never was, actually. What I didn't used to like, and what brought out my rather extreme reaction to you in the past, which I apologise for, was your critical attitude towards people like me; "secular" people. Just as there isn't only one kind of religious person, neither is there just one secular kind. There are good and bad in both camps. I wouldn't say I'm a particularly good person, but I don't think you would see me as a problem if you knew me properly.

A state of mutual respect between us would be my preference, Nick.

[Immanuel Can]

There is no alternate, "more scientific" account on offer.

Of course there is an alternative, more scientific, account on offer,

An alternative account of the origins of man that's more scientific?

What is it?

...and no reason at all not to think man is a unique creature.

Man is certainly extraordinary, in as much as his speciality -intelligence- has enabled him to dominate every other creature on the planet, but Unique doesn't really seem appropriate. There is a vast diversity amoung the creatures of the Earth, and we are merely but one example of it. I am human, so I attach a special significance to humans, but, nature doesn't.

Well, let's see if God does. We can agree that "nature" has no opinions at all.

[Nick_A]

Are there essential truths in Genesis which require more than dualistic discursive thought to reveal? Consider the beginning from Genesis 1?

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

Obviously it is absurd for normal conditioned dualistic logic. But is a person capable of opening to a higher form of reason that reveals 1) How can there be light when there is no sun? 2) What is good when the universe is formless and empty? How are "day and night" produced without a sun? What is a day?

You seem able to admit you don't understand but still don't attack those who sense the logic in it and are trying to understand. I salute you. We've come a long way since the horrors of the "Futility of Reason" thread. Granted I wouldn't initiate such a thread again. I've learned by experience about secular intolerance. but if someone else did, I would contribute but I think those who can have been scared away.

I'm about as secular as you can get, Nick, but I don't feel a need to attack anybody for what they believe, but what they do might be a different matter. I dread to think what society would be like if the more fundamental Christian movement had its way. They already have significant influence in the USA, and the last thing I want is for that to happen in my country. It is true that I don't understand the Bible, but hardly anybody does, and I include those who call themselves Christians. They rely on others to interpret it for them, who in turn take advantage of their position of influence to interfere in the political system. The religion dominated state is part of of history now, and that's how it needs to stay. As far as I'm concerned we should see the Bible as a symbol of oppression, not a source of wisdom.

A person can be a secularist without being intolerant just like a person can be called a Christian without being intolerant. Unfortunately on secular oriented philosophy sites, they are usually dominated by intelligent people who deny the futility of reason and are insulted by the concept expressing their intolerance through intolerance. They don't realize they are in psychological prison. Some topics must be left alone. As Simone Weil wrote:

"The difference between more or less intelligent men is like the difference between criminals condemned to life imprisonment in smaller or larger cells. The intelligent man who is proud of his intelligence is like a condemned man who is proud of his large cell.

I still haven't managed to figure out what you believe, or exactly what kind of world you want, but I'm not hostile to it, and I never was, actually. What I didn't used to like, and what brought out my rather extreme reaction to you in the past, which I apologise for, was your critical attitude towards people like me; "secular" people. Just as there isn't only one kind of religious person, neither is there just one secular kind. There are good and bad in both camps. I wouldn't say I'm a particularly good person, but I don't think you would see me as a problem if you knew me properly.

I am not critical of secularism but to raise the question of Plato's cave and the limitations of dualistic reason can be seen as critical.

The world is the world. It cannot change since it is an expression of its collective being. Only individuals can change. My beliefs are simple. Humanity lives is the darkness of the world with the potential to awaken limited to the conscious potential for individuals. This is offensive to the secular mind since it must deny living in psychological darkness and becomes intolerant of the idea. There has never been a discussion on Plato's Cave on this site. My belief is that Man can change and Christianity offers the means. Secularism doesn't want it so better avoided where secular intolerance is dominant


A state of mutual respect between us would be my preference, Nick.

Agreed. This calls for a toast.

[Belinda]

I pick and choose the bits of The Bible that mean something that matters to me. I especially like "In the beginning, God-----" which subjectively and creatively interpreted means "In the beginning, cosmos----".

Old traditional texts are not only what people once believed but are often , when imagination is applied to the vocabulary, what many people still believe.

[Harbal]

I pick and choose the bits of The Bible that mean something that matters to me. I especially like "In the beginning, God-----" which subjectively and creatively interpreted means "In the beginning, cosmos----".

Old traditional texts are not only what people once believed but are often , when imagination is applied to the vocabulary, what many people still believe.

Although thinking about what the mindset might have been of someone who lived in the time when the original texts of the Bible were written is interesting, I don't tend to think of it as having any useful value to me regarding my own mindset. A lot of people seem to assume wisdom into things that were written a long time ago, as if people back then were tapped into something we have since become remote from. I guess I'm not one of those people.

[Harbal]

Agreed. This calls for a toast.

Cheers, Nick.

[Dontaskme]

You're wrong,

I'm not wrong about the Bible. It is just another mythology, and no better than so many others.

I agree.

The Bible is a mythology, it is liked to an instruction manual for humanity...likened to a self help book,written by the only thing in reality that appears to believe it is need of help or of saving, and it is written by the human hand and no other thing. It's a story about itself, written by itself, namely, the human being and it's conditions.

An instruction manual means only one thing - and that is it can only be instructing a model that must already exist. . for there could be no other reason as to why there would exist instructions in the first place, if the model the instructions are referring or relating to does not exist.

Man is certainly extraordinary, in as much as his speciality -intelligence- has enabled him to dominate every other creature on the planet, but Unique doesn't really seem appropriate. There is a vast diversity amoung the creatures of the Earth, and we are merely but one example of it. I am human, so I attach a special significance to humans, but, nature doesn't.

Yes, I agree Nature does not inform itself of it's greatness, uniqueness, and beauty. Only the human mind does that. The human mind cannot even make sense of it's world, without the concept of duality, the no up without down, or the no beauty without ugly...conceptual understanding.

Nature makes no such distinctions. Nature just is. An earthquake knows not or cares not where or when it happens or who gets crushed to death in the process. Nature does not discriminate as to what lives or dies. It's just not that en-titled.

[Harry Baird]

Ah, yes...I'm sure [indigenous Australians --Harry] were all a bunch of far-sighted proto-Socialists...

Quite obviously, they were. Such tribal societies were/are based on every individual contributing for the benefit of every other individual without having to be paid in money for their contributions.

and no doubt, much better people than you and I. Far more moral, far more pure

As individuals, no doubt, they had/have the same flaws as the rest of us. As a society and culture, however, they didn't contaminate their own beds such that they suffocated in their own waste, as the famous (purported) Native American observation of white man's culture quite fairly goes.

far more nature loving

How odd that you would present this in a mockery, because it's quite obviously true that indigenous Australians were/are far more nature-loving than their colonisers. Indigenous Australians (culturally) see/saw themselves as custodians of the natural world. Their colonisers (culturally) saw/see the natural world as a resource to be exploited.

uninterested in "self."

To the extent that their participation in tribal life was predicated upon contributing for the benefit of their fellows as opposed to earning as much personal profit as they could, of course they were/are less selfish than their colonisers.

The extent to which indigenous Australians were amenable to Christian evangelism is, I suggest, that to which Christ's message of unconditional love for one's fellows resonated with them in a social and cultural sense, because, in that sense, they already practised it - at least to a much better approximation than did their colonisers.

Now, kindly put away your religio-cultural chauvinism and let's close out this exchange.

[Harry Baird]

As a society and culture, however, they didn't contaminate their own beds such that they suffocated in their own waste, as the famous (purported) Native American observation of white man's culture quite fairly goes.

As immortalised in the Soundgarden cover of Black Sabbath's Into the Void with alternative lyrics based on those (purported) Native American observations.

[henry quirk]

Such tribal societies were based on every individual contributing for the benefit of every other individual without having to be paid in money for their contributions.

Oh, they got paid. The tribal system is designed expressly to make individuals dependent. If you want meat and a woman, status and say-so, you put the tribe first.

None of it was altruistic. There was no what can I do to secure my tribe? There was a whole bunch of I best get my ass up and out and bring home some meat or the elders will cut me off.

I wonder how many folks, over the centuries, in tribes, said screw all this human centipede garbage! I'm takin' my happy ass over the mountains away from these people! I might die...but that's got to be better than kissin' ass all the time.

More than we're told about, I'm bettin'.